I joined a private company in March 2006 as a regional training manager. The offer letter included a clause stating that if I left within one year, I must pay an amount equal to 6 months CTC. Despite my resignation in November 2006 due to medical reasons, the organization was satisfied with my performance. I experienced health issues and had to relocate from Bangalore on doctors' advice. My resignation was accepted, and I was to be relieved on December 16. However, I extended my stay to complete a training program. On December 21, I returned all company property and requested a relieving letter. The organization confirmed my relief and mentioned the final settlement would follow. My salary structure included regular pay and flexi reimbursements. Despite follow-ups, the organization informed me later about the clause, causing concerns about their intentions. My queries are:
1) The clause was not mentioned during resignation or in the relieving order. Had I known, I might have continued for two more months to avoid the penalty.
2) Communication did not mention the clause enforcement. I was assured of receiving my settlement, raising doubts on their policy.
3) With the relieving letter received, is the clause enforceable post-relief? I believe once relieved, I owe no dues.
I seek clarity on my legal position, as I feel misled by the organization's actions.
1) The clause was not mentioned during resignation or in the relieving order. Had I known, I might have continued for two more months to avoid the penalty.
2) Communication did not mention the clause enforcement. I was assured of receiving my settlement, raising doubts on their policy.
3) With the relieving letter received, is the clause enforceable post-relief? I believe once relieved, I owe no dues.
I seek clarity on my legal position, as I feel misled by the organization's actions.